THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY OP THE CITIZEN AND NATION IN RESPECT 
TO THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. 



DISCOURSE 



DELIVERED APRIL 10, 1851, 



dDti dDrrwinti nf tjje ^iiMir ^u\, 



ORTHODOX CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH, 



TOWNSEND, MASS. 



BY REV. L. H. SHELDON, 

PASTOR OF THE CHUKCH. 



PUBLISHED BY REQUEST. 



ANDOVER: 

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY JOHN D. FLAQG. 

1851. 









/j 



o 



DISCOURSE 



ISAIAH, 10 : 1, 2. 

"WOB UNTO THEM THAT DECREE UNRIGHTEOUS DECREES, AND THAT WRITE 
GRIEV0USNES8 WHICH THEY HAVE PRESCRIBED ; TO TURN ASIDE THE NEEDY 
FROM JUDGMENT, AND TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT FROM THE POOR OF MY 
PEOPLE, THAT WIDOWS MAY BE THEIR PREY ; AND THAT THEY MAY ROB THE 
FATHERLESS ! 

This is called a Christian land. "We are called a Christian 
people. If there be any significance or truth in this epithet, it 
must lie in the fact that we hold ourselves amenable to a right- 
eous God as our Sovereign ; that Ave regard his revealed will as 
our supreme rule of duty ; that the great and eternal principles of 
rectitude inculcated by Jesus Christ, in connection with the express 
commands of Jehovah, are made the foundation of our social, civil, 
and rehgious blessings ; and that the binding authority of these 
can never be destroyed. It inheres in their very nature. It is 
their unchanging equity. And it is this principle that gives power 
to civil enactments ; that renders them obligatory upon the con- 
science, and creates the moral duty of obedience. 

This fact has been recognized or expressly stated by every 
system of jurisprudence, from the earliest ages to the nineteenth 
century, which has at all regarded the fundamental principles of 
morality. Says that most learned of jurists, Blackstone, " The 
law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God 
himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is bind- 
ing over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times ; no human 
laws are of any validity if contrary to this ; and such of them as 



are valid, derive all their force and all their authority, mediately 
or immediately, from this original." This quotation is sufficient to 
show the views of the most eminent and standard expositors of 
law. And he would have been deemed an atheist, or a driveling 
sciolist, who should have advanced sentiments in conflict with these ! 
Not that the law of God specifies all the minute particulars in 
regard to every question of duty ; but it lays down clearly certain 
broad, comprehensive, and distinct principles, by which thoughtful 
and serious men may determine the moral character of human 
action. He that orders his life in accordance with its express 
teaching, or in harmony with its general spirit, acts right. He that 
sets this at defiance, and regulates his conduct by principles in 
open conflict with the word of eternal truth, is a practical atheist. 
All the special pleading in the world, all the sophistry of the most 
subtle and learned mind, cannot gainsay it. The man, or the men, 
who trample upon the requirements of Jehovah, — no matter how 
great the provocation, no matter how loud or universal the plaudits 
of the multitude, — expose themselves to the threatened vengeance 
of heaven. Neither is it essential whether it be done by the indi- 
vidual or by the nation ; by the man in authority or by the peasant 
in his hut ; it is at all times, and in all stations, treason against 
God, and must be visited by a righteous Judge accordingly. No 
exalted post of honor can sanctify it ; no royal authority ennoble 
it ; no judicial ermine legalize it.* 

As sure as there is an omniscient Sovereign, so sure will he visit 
such rebellion with unmitigated displeasure. This is the universal 
teaching of his Word. The text most unequivocally asserts this. 
" Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees." Says a dis- 
tinguished bibhcal scholar, in regard to this passage : " This 
undoubtedly refers to those who frame statutes that are oppressive 
and iniquitous;" those who have intrusted to them the power of 
enacting laws for the general welfare of the nation, but who so 
abuse that trust as to violate the express command of God, or the 
spirit of his law. " Woe unto them that write grievousness which 
they have px'escribed." Says the commentator above quoted, 
" Here, it evidently refers to the judges who declared unjust and 
oppressive sentences, and caused them to be recorded." I suppose 

* " Law is beneficence acting by rule." — Burke. 



that the woe pronounced by the prophet was directed against that 
class of pubhc men who, in discharge of their official duties, 
departed from the general principles of the Divine law, and substi- 
tuted instead some doctrine of expediency, or principle calculated 
to subserve certain unjust ends. This seems to be the meaning 
from what follows : " To turn aside the needy from judgment, and 
to take away the right from the poor of my people." The decis- 
ions which they make are designed, and have the effect, to pervert 
justice ; to oppress the poor, and deprive them of their inherent 
and just claims. The Avord translated " to take away," is commonly 
applied to an act of robbery and oppression. To take by violence, 
as in the spoil of battle. " Judges, by their office, are particularly 
bound to preserve the rights of such persons ; and it therefore 
evinces peculiar iniquity, when they who should be their protec- 
tors become in fact their oppressors, and do injustice to them 
without the possibility of redress. Yet this was the character of 
the Jewish judges ; and for this was the vengeance of heaven about 
to come upon the land." What has more frequently called down 
the severe and crushing judgments of God upon a nation, than the 
manifestation of cruelty and oppression on the part of the powerful 
towards the weak and defenceless ? How common, therefore, the 
attempt to justify a plain violation of the golden rule, by appealing 
to some general precept, without noticing its evident limitation. 
Thus do wicked men and their abettors wrest the Scriptures to their 
own destruction. By attempting to justify unrighteousness they 
harden their own hearts, and drag down the moral sensitiveness of 
the community to the same degrading level as their own. 

The chief magistrate of this Commonwealth having appointed 
this day as a season of fasting, humiliation, and prayer, in view of 
the sins of this people and nation, especially urging all " to con- 
sider, in the spirit of Christianity, the pubhc and private sins of 
this community," I would call your attention to what now appears 
to me to be one of the most alarming and heaven-defying sins that 
has ever stained the fair fame of this Republic. 

It is this : A systematic and 7nightii effort to destroy the moral 
sensitiveness of the commimity to the infinitely superior claim and 
authority of Crod^s law. 

It is not publicly avowed: so much the more dangerous and 
alarming the fact. It is done covertly, and often even under a 



pretended reverence for the sanctity of the Divine Word. In 
various parts of this State, as well as throughout the nation, men 
clothed with the highest civil and judicial power, under the most 
solemn responsibihtj, have dehberately entered upon the work of 
setting human enactments above the law of God ; of denying, in 
the most positive manner, with the bitterest scorn and derision, that 
there is a higher law than the constitutional edicts of fallible men. 
Every possible influence is resorted to : the love of power ; the 
pride of rank ; the emoluments of office ; the promise of gain ; 
the praise of men ; everything, which can break the golden link 
that binds the conscience of man to the throne of God. He must 
be made to feel that all inquiry stops with the act of legislation. 
That no man can go beyond that. That whatever be the effect 
upon man's moral nature, with no questioning, and in silence, must 
he obey the stern and oppressive mandate of a human tribunal. 
" All discussion must be stopped ; all agitation put down." These 
must be strangled by arbitrary command, or stifled by obloquy and 
denunciation. This is a grave charge ! Can it be substantiated ? 
I believe it can. 

During the recent Congress at the Capitol of this government, 
an Honorable Senator expressed himself in the following words : — 

" The constitution regulates our stewardship ; the constitution 
devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defence, to welfare, and 
to hberty. But there is a Jiigher law than the constitution, which 
regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same 
noble purposes. The territory is a part — no inconsiderable part 
— of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by 
the Creator of the universe. We are Ids stewards, and must so 
discharge our trust as to secure, in the highest attainable degree, 
their happiness." 

Now, one would think that so noble and Christian a sentiment, 
alike honorable to the heart which conceived it and to the God 
which it reverences, would have been met by one universal round 
of applause. That good men. North and South, East and West, 
would have caught the sound and echoed it, as the unequivocal 
response of every intelligent, patriotic, and Christian heart. But 
was it so? The farthest from it possible. Honorable Senators 
and Representatives, from all parts of the Union, hurled against it 
their most envenomed shafts. Its author was assailed as though 



guilty of high treason. A new crusade was commenced. The 
man who should attempt to inoculate the public mind with such a 
deadly virus must face the guillotine. And all this, to elevate in 
the popular mind the decrees of men above the unbending oracles 
of Jehovah ; to awe the people into the most abject submission to 
civil enactments which outraged every principle of justice and 
humanity, and boldly conflicted with the eternal principles of the 
Divine law. A doctrine, new in this land, is now advanced. We 
are taught, that the binding authority of law lies in the fact, that 
the law exists constitutionally ; not in its inJierent moral equity. 
Thus the keynote is struck, and men of smaller calibre catch the 
sound, and the public press chimes in, and all cater to the same 
false and infidel position. The attempt to sustain law at the 
expense of justice, humanity, and religion, does not stop here. 
Mass meetings are called. Some of the most distinguished and 
popular speakers harangue the assembly. How do they meet the 
real question at issue ? How do they attempt to calm the agitated 
feelings of the best portion of the community ; the moral and 
religious ; those that regard the laws of God, and mean to abide 
by their teaching ? Not once, so far as I have seen, have they 
honestly stated the point of conflict. They present a caricature. 
They attribute sentiments to their opponents, and put words into 
their mouths, which they know are false. One speaker, referring 
to this idea, — that the known will of God is to be obeyed before 
any civil law which conflicts with this will, — ridicules it as an 
" undefined higher law, of which every man is to be his own 
expounder, and to act as judge, jury, and executioner." And, 
again ; as a " new form of moral treason, which assumes, by the 
mysterious power of an unknown ' higher law,' to trample down all 
law." Another distinguished speaker, at the same meetmg, alludes 
to this moral sentiment as what " is called, in the cant of the day^ 
the higher law." And, again, " that its real meaning is nullifi- 
cation, repudiation, or abohtionism." Thus, instead of meeting the 
issue like high-minded statesmen, hke honorable. Christian men, 
they attempt to divert the pubhc mind from the real difference 
between themselves and their opponents, by attributing to them, in 
the first place, what they do not beheve and do not teach, and then, 
by demohshing the man of straw which they themselves have 
erected. They constantly confound the clear and well-defined 



8 

principle of our Puritan ancestry — that the law of God is superior 
in its claims to the laws of men, and is to be obeyed before all con- 
flictmg civil law — with that restless and noisy opposition to all law, 
both human and divine, which a mere handful of fanatics keep alive. 
In accomplislung the same purpose, a resolution was passed at a re- 
cent county convention in this State, where the law of God is coupled 
with the higher law of the gambler and the duellist ; and he who 
feels bound by the former, is taunted with being governed by the 
same principle as that which controls thieves and murderers ! 

These instances are but a specimen of the attempt now made to 
break down the moral sensitiveness of the community, to the supe- 
rior authority of the divine law ; to prepare the public mind to 
receive any civil enactment, which artful and designing men may 
create, with the most slavish acquiescence. Do you say that these 
are but hasty and unguarded expressions, called forth by an oppo- 
site ultraism ? But there are still more astounding evidences of 
the spirit above named. It has forced itself into our courts of 
justice, and into the hallowed precincts of the sanctuary ! Our 
judges have turned moralists, and some of our divines have un- 
wittingly adopted a mode of interpreting Scripture, which, if car- 
ried out, would make the word of God sanction the abominations 
of a Nero and the blackest crimes of a Jeffreys. This point will 
be particularly noticed in a subsequent part of this discourse. 

What shall we say of a recent charge of an eminent judge to 
the Grand Jury, in which he coolly and dehberately advocates 
and enforces a principle, which makes power in the hands of 
depraved beings the sole sanction of law ; a principle, which, if 
beheved 5,nd obeyed, would at once and forever annihilate all dis- 
tinction between good and evil, virtue and vice. And all this for 
the express purpose of overcoming the lingering feeling, that, 
where an edict of man conflicts with the law of God, we are to 
abide by the latter as a rule of duty. I will quote his own words, 
that each one may decide for himself. 

Says the Judge : " Even those who go to the extreme of con- 
demning the constitution, and the laws made under it, as unjust 
and immoral, cannot, even upon such an assumption, justify resist- 
ance. In their views, such laws are inconsistent with the justice 
and benevolence, and against the will, of the Supreme Lawgiver ; 
and they emphatically ask, Which shall we obey, the law of man 



or the will of God? I answer — Obey both. The incompatibility 
which the question assumes does not exist. Unjust and oppressive 
laws may, indeed, be passed bj human governments. But if 
infinite and inscrutable Wisdom jjermits jjolitical society, haviiiy the 
power of human legislation., to establish such laws, may not the same 
infinite and inscrutable Wisdom permit and require the individual, 
tvho has no such power, to obey them ? " Now mark well this new 
principle in judicial ethics. It is just this. Because God permits 
government to pass wicked laws, therefore he permits and requires 
the individual subjects of that government to obey them. AVe 
heartily thank the Judge for this frank avowal of his religious 
behef. The doctrine advanced is barefaced. There is no escape ; 
there is no possibility of a misunderstanding. The point here 
argued, is the very one which we would set forth in this discourse. 
The moral obligation of the citizen, in view of the claims of an unjust 
and wicked law ; a law in acknowledged conflict with the law of God. 
Shall the citizen obey God, or man ? And the Judge decides that, 
even when the civil edict is " inconsistent with the justice and 
benevolence, and against the will, of the Supreme Lawgiver," even 
when it is confessedly so, still, if God " permits pohtical society, 
having the power of human legislation, to estabUsh such laws," then 
must God require the individual to obey them. Therefore, God 
requires men to do what is inconsistent with his justice and benev- 
olence, and against his will ! If this be not an utter denial of the 
superiority of the Divine law over human ; if it be not a complete 
reversal of Peter's declaration, " We ought to obey God rather than 
men," then I am unable to understand the meaninsr of lanfniao-e. 
Upon this principle, the venerated maxim of our fathers — that 
" resistance to tyrants is obedience to God" — is worse than false ; 
and every tyrannical edict that has ever issued from the most cruelly 
oppressive governments, no matter how terribly they conflict with 
the will of God, should have been obeyed ! I confess, my hearers, 
that I am perfectly astounded at so bold and unblushing an 
attempt, in this Christian State, by one of her most gifted sons, to 
confound morahty and immorahty, justice and injustice ; to make 
the Christian feel that God sanctions all the iniquitous acts of 
human governments. " Woe unto them that decree unrighteous 
decrees." Hooker has sublimely said, " Of law there can be no 
less acknowledged than that her seat is in the bosom of God," but 



10 

here it is transferred to national power. Here is the authority of 
law. 

Now, when our leading statesmen, and our most learned and 
eminent jurists ; when the judges of our courts, in the calm and 
Tinimpassioned charge to the jury, thus deliberately deny the very 
foundation of the Divine administration ; when they thus attempt 
to ohhterate all moral distinctions, to sear and darken the con- 
sciences of men, and thus destroy the popular feeling of reverence 
for the law of God, is it not high time that the pulpit sound the 
note of alarm, and arouse the people to this most deadly assault 
upon the authority of Jehovah ? This is a legitimate question for 
the sacred desk. It has to do directly Avith the sanctity and 
claims of God's word. It is, then, both our privilege and duty to 
investigate it. And this, witk Divine help, we intend to do. 

But there is still one other point in this same charge, so clearly 
indicating the aim of its author, that I cannot pass it by. Speak- 
ing of the friends and opponents of the " Fugitive Slave Bill," he 
says : " Both are equally sincere, conscientious, and resolute. 
Which shall yield ? Is there no appeal but to force ? Yes ! And 
the arbiter must be society ; organized society, pronouncing its 
decision through its regularly constituted agents. This is the 
moral judgment, the embodied conscience, of the political community. 
To this is not only each individual hound to submit, but it is a neio 
and controlliny element in forming his own moral judgment. An 
act which before may have been innocent, is now criminal." I 
confess, my friends, I read this statement with the most incredulous 
astonishment. Could it be that a son of the old Puritans, educated 
in this Pr(?testant land, and reared amid the stirring associations of 
Lexington and Concord, Bunker's Hill and Faneuil Hall, to say 
nothing of the religious influences of the nineteenth century, — 
could it be, that so eminent a judge would thus deliberately set 
aside the fundamental doctrine of Protestantism ! Man is to give 
up his own conscience and judgment, enlightened by the gospel of 
the Son of God, for an " embodied conscience of the j^oUtical com- 
munity, which is to be a controlling element in forming his own 
moral judgment." We have been taught from our earliest days, 
9,nd had always supposed, that God''s tvord was to be the controlling 
element for every one in forming moral judgment. But it seems 
that in these days of invention a new discovery has been made. 



11 

We have a neiv school, indeed, in morals, to which, I am very 
happy to say, I do not belong. I greatly prefer good old Calvin- 
ism. That man is to take the Scriptures as his rule of duty ; or, as 
it is expressed in our formularies of belief: " This is the only rule 
of faith and practice." I ask. What is this " embodied conscience 
of the political community, which is to be a cojitrolling clement in 
the formation of moral judgment ? " It is the old, exploded notion, 
that man has not the right of private judgment, but must subject 
his conscience to the civil or ecclesiastical authority. Whatever 
they decree is, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, the end of 
all controversy. It must be enforced, " at whatever cost." It is 
" final." Now, this doctrine has long been familiar to the Jesuits, 
but hitherto strange to New England ears. " It has ever been 
regarded as the most atrocious of the doctrines of Ignatius Loyola." 
If such a sentiment as this had been proclaimed in the ears of 
the immortal patriots of '76, their indignation would have known 
no bounds. How would Adams and Otis, Hancock, Jeiferson, and 
Patrick Henry have received such a charge from an English 
judge ? Would they have calmly received the insult to their 
judgment and rehgion which such a sentiment adroitly gives ? I 
fear that even a Court House in chains would not have protected 
the public functionary from an outraged community. 

But it also strikes a death-blow to the great principle which 
sustained all the martyrs who have poured out their blood in obe- 
dience to the civil law, rather than yield the right of private judg- 
ment. ' In this land, we repudiate the idea that the church haa 
power to regulate conscience. She must submit all her require- 
ments to the test of God's word. What shall we think, then, 
when Ave are told, in this oiEcial manner, that the State is to control 
individual conscience by its " embodied conscience ! " What 
becomes of the authority of God ? Where is liis will ? Trans- 
ferred to the statutes of the State. You have only to consult the 
votes of the popular assembly, which demand one thing this year 
and just the reverse the next. This year, they decree all theft 
wrong ; the next, with the Spartan, all undiscovered theft a virtue. 
Thus your rule of morals shifts with every election ; changes with 
every land you visit. What is just to-day, is unjust to-morrow. 
What is virtue in America, is vice in Rome. Must not that be a 
desperate case, which demands such casuistry to sustain it ? Must 



12 

not that community which will endure it have lost the spirit of their 
fathers, and have passed back into the bondage of the dark ages ? 

Easily might this discourse be filled with a recital of the evi- 
dences, that there is now going forward a determined effort to 
destroy the moral sentiment of the people in regard to the superior 
authority of the law of God, and to substitute in its place the 
edicts of civil tribunals. Having now, as I believe, shown you that 
there is a necessity for this discussion, I wish to give you, briefly 
but distmctly, my own views in regard to a point so fundamental 
in the formation of religious character, and in acting the part of 
an orderly and worthy citizen. For it is an indisputable fact, that 
it is the Christian principle of this nation which has so long sus- 
tained it in its glorious career, and which now prevents it from 
being dashed upon the rock of Disunion. Then, woe to him who 
tramples this element under foot ; who discards the authority of 
that law which is the foundation of it. 

There are certain facts which are satisfactorily established ; at 
least, to every moral and Christian man. They are as follows : — 

First : That there is a God, who is the moral Governor of the 
universe. 

Secondly : That every rational creature is a subject of his gov- 
ernment ; bound, under all circumstances, to make the Divine will, 
when discovered, his rule of duty. 

Thirdly : That every moral being must learn the Divine will 
for himself, and, knowing it, he can never do right when deviating 
from it. 

Now, if these statements are not truths fundamental to the 
very existence of moral government, then the Bible is a fiction 
and all religion an imposture. Deny any one of them, and you 
destroy the foundation of Christianity. You cannot stop short of 
atheism, if consistent. There is no middle ground. He that 
plants his feet upon these facts, stands upon a righteous foundation. 
He that rejects them is adrift in the merciless sea of skepticism. 
These truths I most solemnly beheve. And believing them, I 
should prove most false to the sacred trust committed to me, and 
recreant to God, if I failed ever to declare them when the occasion 
demands. Being persuaded that such a time has arrived, I would 
now direct your attention to certain obUgations, which a belief in 
these truths enforce upon all. 



13 

In considering this point, the question at once arises, How does 
the authority of God reach the subject ? Docs he delegate the 
power of administration wholly to civil government ? By no 
means. He has given to his creatures his own law. He has 
endowed them with faculties of understanding this law. He has 
created every man with a conscience, which may approve of what 
is right and condemn and reject what is wrong. Therefore, when 
human governments exercise legitimate authority over their sub- 
jects, they derive their power from the Supreme Ruler. They 
have no permission to require what God condemns. And there are 
many duties devolving upon man as a subject of the Divine govern- 
ment with which the civil ruler has no right to interfere. They 
are the requirements of God. A performance of them, or a neg 
lect of them, does not necessarily interfere with the proper dis- 
charge of all civil relations. Man is commanded to worship God ; 
to offer up prayer ; to clothe the naked ; to feed the hungry ; to 
shelter the defenceless ; and to do unto others as he would that 
they should do unto him. Now, if the civil authority assume to be 
God's vicegerent, and, existing by Divine permission, to have all 
authority over the conscience of the subject, may it not constantly 
conflict with the prior claim of God ? We all know that there is 
no higher law than that which requires obedience to the civil 
magistrate ; but at the same time we know, that this is but one item 
of the Divine law. He has given many other laws. With these, 
the edicts of man may conflict. In such a case, which has the 
prior claim for obedience upon the subject ; God, or the civil ruler ? 
Both, he cannot obey. Here is the point which most of those who 
have labored so zealously in support of human edicts have passed 
over in silence. They do not meet it as the question of all others 
to be properly understood. There is no controversy in regard to 
the question, whether the citizen is bound to obey the laws of the 
land, as a general truth. The Bible is full of proof that he is. 
But the point is, when the civil ruler so transcends his legitimate 
authority as to require what is manifestly in conflict with the com- 
mands of God, does this general rule still hold ? Is there not, 
then, a higher law, by which all men are bound ? Look at that 
assembly of rulers at Jerusalem. Before them stand Peter and 
John, arrested for doing what they believed to be the mandate of 
Heaven. Yet they have violated the laws of the land. And the 



14 

civil authority command them to be silent in regard to those topics 
■which so agitate the public mind, and threaten the peace and sta- 
biUtj of the government ; those doctrines which so stir up the 
passions of wicked men, — men who are violating God's law. And 
what is the notable reply of God's own messengers ? " Whether 
it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto 
God, judge ye ! " And they went directly from this tribunal, 
" which dared not punish them because of the people," to fulfil 
the same obhgations more boldly and powerfully : and yet we are 
told that, because God permits this civil authority, having the 
power, to enact this unjust law, therefore " he may require the 
individual, who has no such power, to obey it ! " A principle which 
elevates the tyrant to the throne of God ; which makes right con- 
sist in obeying the statute of the land. 

We hold such a sentiment to be but little better than blasphemy. 
We utterly abjure a doctrine so demoralizing in its tendency ; so 
derogatory to the character of God. We have stated certain truths 
as essential to a moral government. We now ask, Do nations come 
under laws differing from those which bind the individual ? Does 
the fact, that a civil government consists of a number of men, legally 
appointed, and authorized to make all necessary laws for the good 
of the people, sanctify all their legislation, and exempt them from 
the moral obligation and responsibility which rested upon them 
while mere citizens ? Most certainly not. If they now, in any act 
of legislation, trample upon the eternal principle of right ; if they 
violate the command of God ; if they set up laws in conflict with 
the whole spirit of the Divine ritual, their decrees are unrighteous, 
and the woe of God is denounced against them. The requirement 
is none the less wicked and reprehensible because made by the 
nation ; because it is a law of the land. And if it is a wicked 
requisition, he who obeys it does wickedly. The President has 
declared the same truth in a recent message : " The great law of 
morality ought to have a national as well as personal and individual 
application." Human laws cannot alter the moral character of an 
act. In the sight of God, an act possessing a moral character is 
either right or wrong. If right before legislation, it is after. If 
wrong before, it remains the same after. For morality is not cre- 
ated by human edicts. Eight and wrong are eternal principles in 
the government of God. If it were not so, how could nations, as 



16 

such, be visited by the retributive justice of an avenging Judge ? 
Thej might bathe in the blood of the innocent victims of their op- 
pression ; thej might heap up the wickedness of Sodom and Go- 
morrah, and yet " go unwhipped of justice." But no : thanks to 
a righteous God, there is no such hccnse to combined po>Yer to 
revel in iniquity with impunity. They are amenable to the same 
law as the individual. The legislative power, and the people who 
sustain it, are alike bound to know the will of God, and, learning it, 
to obey it. If either or both disregard this will, they fall under 
the displeasui-e, and subject themselves to the penalty, of his law. 
Neither is it any more an excuse for the government than for the 
individual, to say, that " others before us have done the same 
wrong." It furnishes no justification. If, at any time, the law- 
making power transcend the authority vested in them as servants 
of God, and, to carry out their own selfish ends, forsake the eternal 
principles of rectitude which he has established, and enact cruel 
and wicked laws, it is undeniably the duty of future legislators to 
labor earnestly and perseveringly for their repeal ; to proclaim 
openly and boldly the wrong. They should not violently overthrow 
the whole government ; they should not recklessly rush into the 
terrible conflict of a revolution ; but calmly and religiously should 
they turn the minds of men to the specific wrong, and, in a lawful 
manner, change the public sentiment in favor of right and justice. 
This is an obligation imposed upon them by the law of God. For 
human law proceeds from imperfect and often very wicked men ; 
and it is a very dangerous assumption, that the civil edict is beyond 
the reach of moral inquiry ; that the legislation of a Republic, under 
the best of constitutions, is infallible. I hope we are not yet polit- 
ical papists ! But if doctrines lately advanced become the basis of 
future legislation, we have a despotism as arrogant, as cruel and 
relentless, as ever cursed the nations of the Old World. 

Having noticed the bearing of these fundamental truths upon the 
government and the legislation of a land, let us now examine them 
more' particularly in their application to the moral and Christian 
citizen. In this day of excitement and ultraism, both for and 
against the laws of the land, it becomes the true patriot to cling to 
the eternal principles of rectitude, if he can discover them, with 
unyielding tenacity. In his earthly existence, man sustains a 
threefold relation — to God ; to tlie world ; and to himself. His rela- 



16 

tion to God is supreme. This obligation binds him to regard others 
as he does himself; always, however, being in subjection to the 
Divine law. Now it so happens, in the progress of time, that the 
general welfare of the community demands a civU government. It 
is formed. It gives birth to legal enactments. It is bound, as we 
have seen, to produce just and impartial laws ; laws not in conflict 
with the claims of God upon man. It was for this that God gave 
it existence. This is its proper mission : " To form a more perfect 
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, promote the 
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and 
our posterity." This is consonant with the highest law. But what 
if it depart from its legitimate authority, and, assuming supreme 
power over its subjects, enact laws in direct conflict with the com- 
mands of the universal Sovereign ? Does it then annihilate the 
relation of the citizen to the Supreme Ruler ? Does it destroy his 
obligation to obey God rather than man ? I unhesitatingly answer, 
It does not. It can not. It may make many oppressive exactions 
upon us, it may treat its subjects cruelly, and they may be imder 
obligation to submit. But when it requires the citizen to do what is 
plainly in conflict with God's commands, there is no alternative for 
the good man, but steadfastly to refuse obedience, and quietly sub- 
mit to whatever unrighteous penalty shall be inflicted. If, like an 
ancient king, it shall legislate some idol into existence, and send 
forth its edict through aU the provinces, commanding all men to 
bow down and worship it, and some conscientious and God-fearing 
citizens shall rise up and say, " Be it known unto thee, king, 
that we wull not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image 
which thou hast set up," shall we pronounce such a decision rash 
and reprehensible ? — shall we say that the furnace, seven times 
heated, is just the place for them ? Shall we, with certain divines, 
of late, substantiate our position by quotations of Scripture thus ital- 
icised, " Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the lord's 
sake : whether it be to the king, as supreme ; or unto governors, as 
unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, 
and for the praise of them that do well ? " Would not this be a most 
barefaced perversion of the words of the apostle, inculcating a sen- 
timent which the issue of the event most substantially condemns ? 

Again : suppose another Darius should be called to assume the 
reins of government, and " all the governors, and the princes, the 



17 

counsellors, and the captains" of the kingdom, should consult 
together, and " establish a rojal statute and make a firm decree," 
which was to be as " final " as the " law of the Medes and Per- 
sians, Avhich altereth not," and some Daniel, " after he knew that 
the writing was signed," should go forth, and three times a day 
deliberately disobey it, on the ground that it plainly commanded 
him to do what conflicted with the laws of his God, should we join 
in the cry. Away with him to the lion's den ? And should we 
attempt to justify such barbarous inhumanity by quoting the words 
of Christ, " Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's ? " And 
what better than this are many of the homihes now proclaimed in 
the ears of a Christian community ? No wonder that many good 
men are indignant at so strange and alarming a perversion of the 
Avord of God. 

The truth is, that if any civil law commands the citizen to act in 
op|x>sition to the requirements of his God, he is justified in refusing, 
provided he unresistingly submits to the penalty which the State 
shall inflict. This the Quakers have done for years, yet who 
esteems them any the less patriotic. I am astonished that any one 
can be found, who has the least regard for the word of God, that 
will deny this principle. Men may ridicule the idea of a " higher 
law " to their heart's content. They may stigmatize it as a " cant 
expression," and load it with the most opprobrious epithets ; but 
dare any Christian man say that the claims of God's law are not 
superior to human enactments ? Dare any man say, with the Bible 
open in his hand, there is no law higher than that enacted by the 
civil ruler ? As we have seen, good men of old believed there was, 
and acted accordingly. The apostles believed there was, and that 
they would obey at all hazards. Christian martyrs, of every age, 
poured out their life's blood in support of this principle. And shall 
we now denounce them as traitors, — men stirring up strife and 
sedition ? They were not exciters of the mob spirit. They quietly 
obeyed the laws of God, as they were morally bound to do, and 
then left the consequences in his hand ; and he honored their 
trust. If they sufiered, " it was for righteousness' sake." " And 
blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and 
shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake ; for 
great is your reward in heaven." I repeat it : I am surprised, 
that a doctrine so perfectly evident, both from the very nature of 

3 



18 

the case, and from the many examples on record in its favor, should 
ever be denied or doubted. And I have been more surprised, 
that ministers of the gospel, while urging the citizen in general 
terms to obey civil law, — to which I give my most cordial and 
hearty approbation, — should overlook this all-important point, or 
pass over it as Hghtly as possible, lest they might have to encounter 
the hostility of some violent, ultra conservative. 

Nothing is more evident, than that it is the duty of every good 
citizen to obey the laws of the land. But to say, because this is a 
duty, generically, therefore there can be no specific exception, is a 
mark of the greatest folly. And to quote Scripture in proof of 
such a doctrine, denotes a recklessness of moral principle, or an 
ignorance of the principles of interpretation, which deserves the 
severest censure. Suppose some tyrannical parent should command 
his child to refrain from prayer, to lie and steal, to profane the 
name of God, and murder the helpless, or even to make a mock 
of religion ; and when reasoned with in regard to the unjust nature 
and wickedness of such a demand, should reply : "Do you know 
what you are doing ? This authority is vested in me by God him- 
self. I have his express word to bear me out. Says the apostle 
Paul, ' Children, obey your parents in all things ; for this is well- 
pleasing unto the Lord.'' " What would some of our moralists, with 
their own reasonings before them, say in reply ? The fact is, there 
is a higher law for the child than the parent's dictum. While the 
parent requires what is consonant with the will of God, he is to be 
obeyed, implicitly. But the moment he commands his child to do 
what he believes to be a violation of his duty to God, that instant 
is the child absolved from his obligation to obey, so far as that sui- 
ful requirement is concerned. 

Now, this is precisely the relation of the citizen to the govern- 
ment. When the Bible speaks of rulers as possessing authority, 
and of subjects as being under obligation to submit, it always pre- 
supposes that they will decree what is consonant with the revealed 
will of God. That they wiU have regard to that eternal principle 
of moral equity, which alone brings a law home to the consciences 
of men, with an inherent power to create the obligation of obedi- 
ence. If any Christian community, tolerably enhghtened, are to 
be swayed by civil law, it must not only come with authority,— with 
the bayonet, or the prison, or the halter ; but it must bear upon its 



19 

face truth^ and justice, and rmral equity. You cannot go to a com- 
munity of enlightened freemen, and assume that they are a company 
of brutes, and will cringe before the i-od of the magistrate, and tamely 
submit to the dictate of a manifestly cruel and oppressive law. The 
blood of the old Puritan boils anew at such an insult to good sense and 
moral prmciple. If you wish laws to be obeyed by the mass, Avith- 
out any question as to their justice, and the righteousness of their 
requirements, you must go to the land of despotism, superstition, 
and ignorance. In a land like this, civil enactments which conflict 
with the religious sentiment of the community come into existence 
with the sentence of death stamped upon them. They cannot live. 
They may be bolstered up a few days. They may be kept along 
by the administration of nauseous and repulsive drugs ; but their 
doom is sealed. They must meet the ordeal of an enlightened and 
Christian pubhc sentiment, — of the pulpit, and the press, and the 
ballot-box. And in this way, without mobs, without insurrection, 
without popular tumult, legal mistakes may be rectified, unjust 
and wicked laws repealed. This is the glory of republicanism. 
Our rulers and legislators are made and unmade by the popular 
voice. If they persist in forcing upon the people such laws as they 
believe to be wrong, to violate the spirit of the Divine law, the 
people will agitate the subject, until pubhc sentiment set the matter 
right. How is it in regard to questions which have already passed 
through this ordeal ? A few years since merchants were every- 
where licensed to sell intoxicating drinks. The wave of intemper- 
ance rolled with desolation over the entire extent of our land, 
without meeting a barrier. The civil law both countenanced and 
sustained this dreadful business. At last, the eyes of some few 
began to be opened to the enormous wrong ; to the fearful injury 
which was inflicted upon a portion of the community, only to gratify 
the sordid avarice of the seller. They raised the note of alarm. 
They were greeted with hisses and groans, with brickbats, and still 
more offensive missiles. They were scouted as fanatics and ultra- 
ists ; men of one idea ; mischief-making and mob-exciting men. 
They were put down as far as possible by might. But right Avas 
on their side. They brought the truth of reason and of God to 
bear upon the accursed traffic, and the leaven began to work, and 
soon the law was repealed, in spite of the opposition which arose 
from every quarter. It is quite amusing to turn back and examine 



20 

some sermons and speeches delivered about that time : some learned 
biblical exegesis to sustain the rumseller ; some eloquent legal eflfort 
to prop up a doomed cause. And it is a remarkable fact, that 
many who are now among the foremost in proclaiming the sanctity 
of human law, have done their utmost to break down the authority 
of this law. They were ready enough to test the constitutionahty 
of it. They could plead most learnedly and eloquently in defence 
of those who violated it. If their influence had been brought to 
bear in support of this righteous law, as it has since for a most 
unjust and cruel one, intemperance would have well-nigh ceased in 
the State. 

Shall these men now complain, if citizens, loving justice, turn 
the tables upon them and say. If it was right, and no treason, for 
you to make the most strenuous exertion to prevent putting a good 
law in force, which happened to be odious to you, it certainly 
cannot be wrong for us, under law, to labor to repeal a most in- 
human and wicked statute ? We put this matter home to the con- 
sciences of certain men who have recently become so furious in 
advocating the sanctity of human law. We should remember 
that a praiseworthy reverence for law is a " general principle, and 
not an isolated fact." It does not allow men to throw every pos- 
sible obstruction in the way of executing a law which they dislike, 
and at the same time permit them to proclaim themselves, par 
excellence, the defenders of the constitution. It does not sanction 
men in hurling their anathemas against the citizens of Massachusetts, 
because they seek to repeal a law which they beheve to be morally 
wrong, while, at the same time, they silently wink at the constant 
violation of constitutional obligations by a sister State. It cannot 
be denied, but that these violent demonstrations in favor of the 
supremacy of civil law, " in whatever event and at whatever cost," 
come with rather an ill grace from men who are notorious for 
trampling under foot our usury laws, and the constitutional obliga- 
tions of one State towards the citizens of another ; who violate the 
post-office laws of the United States ; who offer rewards for free 
Northern citizens, that they may lynch them ; who imprison 
Northern seamen, and sell them into slavery. How can we respect 
the refined sensibility of such men ? How give them credit for 
integrity, when their regard for the Union goes no farther than to 
uphold a law in which their pride and self-interest are involved ? 



21 

Shall we turn aside from the teaching of such jurists as Blaclcstone, 
and moralists as Calvin and Edwards, and the like, to receive wisdom 
from these new teachers ? Let us hear the words of some whom 
we have long been accustomed to reverence for their profound 
judgment, their great learning, and consistent piety. Let us see 
whether the sentiments of the discourse belong to the " new or old 
school." 

Calvin writes, in his Institutes of Religion, b. iv, chap. 20, sect. 
32, as follows : — 

" In the obedience -whicli we have shown to be due to 4he authority of 
governors, it is al-ways necessary to make one exception, and that is entitled 
to our first attention, — that it do not seduce us from our obedience to him, 
to whose will the desires of all kings ought to be subject, to whose decrees 
all their commands ought to yield, to whose majesty all their sceptres ought 
to submit. If they command anything against him, it ought not to have the 
least attention ; nor, in this case, ought we to pay any regard to all that 
dignity attached to magistrates ; to which no injury is done when it is sub- 
jected to the unrivalled and supreme power of God. On this principle 
Daniel denied that he had committed any crime against the king in disobey- 
ing his impious decree (Dan. 6: 22) ; because the king had exceeded the 
limits of his office, and had not only done an injury to men, but, by raising 
his arm against God, had degraded lais own authority. * * * * 
So far is any praise from being due to the pretext of humility, with which 
courtly flatterers excuse themselves and deceive the unwary, when they deny 
that it is lawful for them to refuse compliance with any command of their 
kino-s : as if God had resigned his right to mortal men, when he made them 
rulers of mankind ; or as if earthly power were diminished by being subor- 
dinated to its Author, before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble 
with awe. I know what great and present danger awaits this constancy, for 
kinors cannot bear to be disregarded without the greatest indignation ; and 
' the wrath of a king,' says Solomon, ' is as messengers of death.' But 
since this edict has been proclaimed by that celestial herald, Peter, ' We 
outrht to obey God rather than men,' — let us console ourselves with this 
thouofht, that we truly perform the obedience which God requires of us, when 
we suffer anything rather than deviate from piety. And that our hearts may 
not fail us, Paul stimulates us with another consideration, — that Christ has 
redeemed us at the immense price which our redemption cost him, that we 
may not be submissive to the corrupt desires of men, much less be slaves to 
their impiety." 

The distinguished Robert Hall has given the world the truth on 
this matter, in few words : — 

" The hmits of every duty must be determined by its reasons, and the 
only ones assigned here (Rom. 13) or that can be assigned for submission to 
civil authority, are its tendency to do good ; wherever, therefore, this shall 



cease to be the case, submission becomes absurd, having no longer any 
rational view. But at what time this evil shall be judged to have arrived, or 
what remedy it may be proper to apply, Christianity does not decide, but 
leaves to be determined by an appeal to Natural Reason and Right." 

Palej is equally clear in regard to the duty of obedience to civil 
government, as developed by the teaching of the Scriptures : — 

" They (the Scriptures) inculcate the duty., they do not describe the extent 
of it. They enforce the obligations by the proper sanctions of Christianity, 
without intending either to enlarge or contract, — without considering, indeed, 
the limits by which it is bounded. This is, also, the method in which the 
same apostles enjoin the duty of servants to their masters, of children to 
their parents, of wives to their husbands : ' Servants, be subject to your mas- 
ters,' — ' Children, obey your parents in all things,' — ' Wives, submit your- 
selves to your own husbands.' The same concise and absolute form of 
expression occurs in aU these precepts ; the same silence as to any exceptions 
or distinctions ; yet no one doubts that the commands of masters, parents, 
and husbands are often so immoderate, unjust, and inconsistent with other 
obligations, that they both may and ought to be resisted." 

Dr. Hodge, in commenting on the 13th of Romans, examines 
this whole subject most thoroughly and satisfactorily. He says : — 

" The obedience which the Scriptures conunand us to render to our rulers 
is not unlimited ; there are cases in wliich disobedience is a duty. This is 
evident, first, from the very nature of the case. The command to obey 
magistrates is, from its nature, a command to obey them as magistrates in the 
exercise of their rightful authority. No one doubts that the precept, ' Chil- 
dren, obey your parents in all things,' is a conmiand to obey them in the 
exercise of their rightful parental authority, and imposes no obUgation to 
implicit and passive obedience. Secondly, from the fact that the same 
inspired men who enjoin, in such general terms, obedience to rulers, them- 
selves uniformly and openly disobeyed them whenever their commands were 
inconsistent with other and liiyher obligations. ' We ought to obey God 
rather than men,' was the principle which the early Christians avowed, and 
on which they acted. There are cases, therefore, in which disobedience is a 
duty. No command to do anything morally icrong can he binding. The right 
of deciding on all these points, and determining where the obligation to obe- 
dience ceases, and the duty of resistance begins, must, from the nature 
OF the case, rest with the subject and not w^ith the ruler. 
The apostles and early Christians decided this point for themselves, and 
did not leave the decision with the Jewish or Roman authorities." 

Says President Edwards : " Rulers are bound to rule in the fear 
of God, and for the good of the people ; and if they do not, then 
in resisting them we are doing God service.'''' 

There is no end to sentiments of this character proclaimed by 



23 

divines of every age. They clearly reveal what the Christian 
doctrine on this subject has ever been. They show the true posi- 
tion of those who now attempt, by ridicule, by legal subtleties, and 
by a perversion of Scripture, to destroy the feeling, that the claims 
of God's law are superior to the conflicting claims of any civil 
statute. 

Permit me, my friends, in closing the discussion of this subject, 
to apply the principles here developed to the recent act of Congress, 
called " The Fugitive Slave Bill." For it is to this law that all 
thoughts are now turned. The great question with all good men 
is, What shall I do in regard to it ? Am I morally bound to 
give it my approbation and support ? Must I silently acquiesce in 
it, or, in every scriptural way and by all lawful means, seek its 
repeal, and expose its true nature ? 

Taking the fundamental principles Qf the Divine administration, 
as above stated, for our rule of action, duty becomes plain. The 
only question for us to decide, is, what is the real character of this 
Bill when tested by the law of God. If its spirit is in harmony 
with the moral law ; if its requirements in no way conflict with the 
eternal principles of moral rectitude, and the express obligations of 
man to obey the law of his Supreme Sovereign, then the directions 
of the sacred writers to subjects of civil government are binding 
upon us. "We must obey, or incur the fearful penalty which God 
denounces against such as trample his own authority beneath their 
feet. But if, on the other hand, it array the subject in opposition 
to the requirements of Heaven, — if it command the subject to do what 
God bids him never do, or compels him not to do what God declares 
he shall, — then it demands of its subject to do wrong, and that he 
cannot do without subjecting himself to the terrible retributions of 
an insulted Sovereign. In this case he is bound as a good citizen 
to labor for its repeal, to show its iniquity ; and if it be necessary as 
the subject of God's law to refuse to obey, and quietly endure the 
penalty. This we believe to be the teaching of reason and of the 
word of God. With this accord all the acts of the apostles and 
holy men in former ages. This is the doctrine, as we have seen, 
which our standard writers lay down, both judicial and ecclesiasti- 
cal. Now, it will not be strange if good men do not see ahke in 
regard to the character of this law. We are so Uable to be warped 
in our decisions by our wishes ; we are so much accustomed to let 



24 

others do our thinking for us, and to feel that we must go where 
great men lead, that we are very likely to adopt their sentiments, 
whether rio-ht or wrong. To look upon learned casuistry as sound 
argument; assumptions, as facts. But such a course will not 
excuse immoral action, at the bar of God. You, my hearer, cannot 
plead there, that others trampled the principles of justice beneath 
their feet, and therefore you were justified in doing the same. For 
God has expressly commanded, that " Thou shalt not follow a mul- 
titude to dfo evi7." He has given you his law. You know the gen- 
eral spirit of his revealed will. That he has said, " Thou shalt love 
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and 
Avith all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment." 
" And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor 
as thyself.'^ Now let us examine some of the specifications of this 
Bill by the principles here laid down, as well as by some direct 
requirements of God in regard to the same subject. 

I have not time, neither is it necessary, to enter upon a minute, 
detailed examination of the law as a whole. It will be sufficient 
for our purpose to look at some of its main features. And in this 
department, I shall confine myself to the moral rather than the 
constitutional character of the Bill ; for it is to this that this discus- 
sion looks. The Divine law says : " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as 
thyself." And Christ has most satisfactorily answered the query, 
" Who is my neighbor ? " No one will contend that it shuts out the 
fugitive. If he comes to us charged with no crime, seeking an asy- 
lum, peaceable and well-disposed, I ask, if this command of God 
does not lay every man under obligation to treat him as he feels 
morally bound to treat other men, and as he would wish others to 
treat himself? Most surely it does. But does this law ? Examine this 
point. In this State we have no slaves. Every man, therefore, is 
legally presumed to be a freeman until he is proved to be a slave. 
The constitution grants no power to any State or individual to carry 
a free citizen into a state of bondage for no crime. Before, then, a 
man can be justly given up, he must be proved to be a fugitive slave. 
This involves a trial on the question of fact. Now, are we not morally 
bound to give to this man the same kind of trial, on this question of 
fact as to whether he is a slave or not, that we give to others and 
claim for ourselves ? Should we hold it to be morally right for a 
judge to pronounce sentence, after hearing only what the plaintiff has 



25 

to say ? What would be thought of the righteousness of such a 
procedure toward ourselves ? The fact is, the Fugitive Slave Law, 
to all intents and purposes, consigns a man, free in our State, to 
the most abject slavery, without trial in accordance with the laws 
of the land. And this is a direct violation of the Divine law. A 
fugitive from justice, is delivered up to he tried hi) an impartial 
jury, with all the securities of a freeman. But not so in this case. 
What possible chance has he for such a trial, when once within the 
hands of the master ? None at all. This is injustice. It is inhu- 
manity. It is a plain violation of God's law. Behold the commis- 
sioner, hurrying through the farce of a trial, hardly waiting for the 
panting fugitive to obtain friendly counsel, because the law requires 
" summary " proceedings, and, with Robespierre-like despatch, 
handing him over to the slave-hunter ! Is this the way we treat 
others, and wish to be treated ourselves ? What shall we say of 
the moral character of such proceedings against a poor, weak, and 
defenceless brother, when we read the words of Christ, " What- 
soever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye the same unto 
them?'' 

Again : This law commands me "to aid and assist " in arresting 
this supposed fugitive, under the severest penalties for refusal. 
And this too, when it is well-nigh an absolute certainty that, if his 
skin be black, he will be hurried into slavery without an opportunity 
to prove himself a freeman. Look at the case which actually 
occurred in Detroit, where the respondent declared himself a free 
man, and prayed for a little delay till he could send to a neighbor- 
ing city for his free papers ; but was told by the commissioner, 
" that even free papers, from the very man that claimed him, ivould 
he of no avail ; for where the law made the evidence ' conclusive,' 
nothing could rebut it." Look at the case which took place a 
little time since in Philadelphia. The man is delivered up upon 
the testimony of those employed for the purpose of securing him, 
against strong evidence in favor of his freedom ; and when dehv- 
ered into the hand of his supposed master, proves not to be his 
slave. Now a law must be an unjust one, which commits the 
greatest possible wrong upon a man, with scarcely a possibihty of 
escape. What man of you would submit your liberty to such a 
test ? And if you would not permit your child to be seized ; if you 
would not " aid and assist " in seizing him yourself, and in dragging 

4 



26 

him before the commissioner, because you believed it to be wrong, 
and a violation of every principle of justice, what moral right have 
you to do that to another ? But God has given a command that 
meets this very case. He has said, " Thou shalt not deliver unto 
his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee ; 
he shall dwell ivith thee, even among you, in that place which he 
shall choose in one of thy gates, where it hketh him best. Thou 
SHALT NOT OPPRESS HIM." Now if this principle was just and con- 
sonant with the will of God in those dark times, what shall we say 
of a law in this nineteenth century, which inculcates and enforces, 
under the direst pains, a course of conduct directly the reverse ? 
God is always against the oppressor, and on the side of the 
oppressed. Therefore he says, " Hide the outcasts ; bewray not 
him that wandereth." " Let mine outcasts dwell with thee ; be 
thou a covert to them from the face of the spoiler." What does 
God say in regard to this very occasion, which calls his people to 
his sanctuary ? "Is not this the fast I have chosen ? to loose the 
bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the 
oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke ? Is it not to 
deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that 
are cast out to thy house ? when thou seest the naked, that thou 
cover biTTi ; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh ? " 
But this law forbids us to do this towards a large class of our 
fellow-beings. If anything is done to hide the outcast, to bring 
him into thy house, to clothe and feed him, and send him on his 
way to a land of freedom, this law subjects the citizen, so aiding 
the suspected one, " to a fine of not over one thousand dollars, and 
imprisonment six months ! " "It therefore makes acts of hospi- 
tahty and gospel mercy to the unhappy fugitive a crime for which 
the agent may be severely punished." Is this the spirit of the 
gospel of the Prince of Peace ? Can a man be actuated by the 
spirit of this gospel, and carry out the requirements of this Fugitive 
Law ? If so, I have studied the Divine Word to httle purpose. 

But one of the most insulting and degrading features of this Bill 
is, that it holds out a bribe to the officer of justice to do a great 
wrong. If the man is declared a freeman, the fee is but half as 
much as if he is sentenced to bondage ; while it is evident to any 
one, that a trial which should result in freedom would ordinarily 
employ far more time and trouble. The fact is, no one can read 



27 

the specifications of this act without being made to feel, that the 
whole design of it is to secure the fugitive, or some black man in 
his place, Avithout regard to justice or moral principle. And the 
instances which are continually occurring in the execution of the 
law, reveal most distinctly its immoral and wicked character. We 
have already referred to two. 

" To arrest a fugitive slave," is a very harmless expression as it 
falls upon the ear ; but terrible beyond description as it actual- 
izes itself upon some trembling victim of oppression. Witness the 
agony of separation between husbands and wives, parents and 
children ; the sundering of the dearest ties ; Christians dragged 
forcibly from the altars where they have consecrated their off- 
spring to a God of mercy ; from the graves where they have con- 
signed the dearest of earth ; ministers of the gospel, driven from 
their congregations to seek a shelter in foreign climes under the 
more humane rule of royalty ! Listen to the following, as recently 
published in the "Religious Herald," and since confirmed by 
letters from the fugitive himself: — 

" An illustration of the civilization and Christianity embodied in the 
Fugitive Slave Bill, has recently come to our knowledge. The Rev. Dr. 
Pennington, pastor of the Shiloh Presb}i;erian church in New York city, has 
been for two years past in Great Britain. Many of his friends have wondered 
that he did not return. The reason has now transpired. He has written to 
a legal gentleman in this city to know whether it will be safe for him 
to return. He is a fugitive slave, having escaped from Maryland some twenty 
years ago ; and fears that, if he resumes his ministerial labors in New York, 
he will be seized, parted from his wife, — an estimable woman whom he mar- 
ried in this city, — dragged from his church, and sent to a Southern planta- 
tion. We had supposed that he had purchased himself, and was in possession 
of free papers, but it appears that we were mistaken. 

" Think of this, professors of the rehgion of Jesus Christ, — members of 
the church which he purchased with his blood ! Your brother Christian, 
a minister of the blessed Saviour, is driven from his pastoral labors, and 
forced to shelter himself in a foreign land, lest, under the operation of our 
laws, which both the leading political parties are pledging themselves to 
maintain, he should be doomed to a life of slavery ! What must the Saviour 
think of a law, or of an aiticle in the constitution as generally interpreted, 
which delivers up one of his ministers as a prey to the oppressor ? Would 
the iniquity be greater if for Rev. Dr. Pennington we should substitute Rev. 
Dr. Spring, of the same city ? Not at all. Yet what exclamations of horror 
would go forth, if Dr. Spring should be forced to flee the countiy for no 
crime, but merely because the law allowed the editor of the ' New York 
Observer ' to claim and hold him as property. We read of the barbarous 
customs of former ages, and thank God that we do not live in such times of 



28 

darkness, while there are deeds transacted under our eyes which are worthy 
of the darkest days of Rome, pagan or papal. "We receive persecuted 
Christians from Madeira; and send our own refugees to Canada and Great 
Britain ! "We put it to the conscience of every Christian, Do you believe it 
would be right to drag Dr. Pennington back to slavery ? We trust not. A 
law that would send our brother Pennington into slavery never proceeded 
from God, and comes clothed with no Divine authority." 

Here is a practical illustration of the workings of this law. Its 
cruel features can onlj be seen as they thus realize themselves. 
One of its most terrible effects is everywhere noticed in its demor- 
alizing tendency. It blunts the moral sensibility to injustice and 
inhumanity. It causes men to forget the words they have uttered 
in defence of human rights, and to proclaim new and conflicting 
doctrines. It trifles with the religious feeling of a large and most 
respectable portion of the community. And in the language of 
Mr. Webster, I would say, " He is a rash man indeed, little con- 
versant ivith human tiatwe, and especially has he a very erroneous 
estimate of the character of the people of this country, ivho supposes 
that afeeliny of this kind is to be trifled with, or despised^ And 
when we recur to his eloquent pleadings in behalf of oppressed 
Greece ; when we listen to his outburst of indignation in view of 
Austrian cruelty, and behold in his many speeches, his massive and 
overpowering argument in defence of the great principles of human 
liberty, we can but utterly detest this " Fugitive Slave Bill," which 
so outrages every noble sentiment that he has uttered in behalf of 
the oppressed of earth. We cannot but labor and pray that God 
may hasten its doom. For pass away it must. The law of God 
condemns it. The whole spirit of the gospel is against it. The 
religious feeling of the community will not tolerate it ; and even 
its friends are its apologists. They dare not attempt to defend it 
on its inherent virtue. Pass away it must, so sure as there is a 
righteous Sovereign in the universe. And we pray, God speed it 
to its destiny. 

Finally : If that spuit which now seeks to sustain this law, by 
weakening the authority of God's word over the consciences of 
men, is to be fostered and applauded, this nation will rue the day 
in which she consummated this unnatural deed. For nations are 
no less amenable to the God of heaven than individuals. It is he 
that saith, " Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach 
to any people." He has denounced the most fearful woes against 



20 

the nation who lend themselves to sustain oppression, and who 
trample upon the rights of the weak and defenceless. " For among 
mj people are found wicked men ; they lay wait, as he that setteth 
snares ; they set a trap, they catch men. Shall I not visit for 
these things ? saith the Lord : shall not my soul be avenged on 
such a nation as this ? " 

The truth is, my hearers, the whole people must do right. They 
must do right as a nation, in their civil enactments, if they expect 
the smiles of God's favor. Both profane and sacred history pro- 
claim, in notes of startling eloquence, the doom of that nation which 
recklessly disregards its obligations to the law of God. And this 
is one great reasoa why good men oppose this law. They well 
know that the most powerful fleets and armies, the most consum- 
mate skill of politicians, cannot save a nation when God shall decree 
its overthrow because of its cruelty. Therefore they watch, with 
a jealous eye, the first steps which lead to so dreadful an issue. 
They seek to inform the public mind, to arouse the public con- 
science, and lead the multitude back to the eternal law of right. 
It is a false and dangerous assumption that such efibrts threaten 
the dissolution of the Union. Are we Christians, and believe 
this ? What ! a nation trembUng lest it crumble in pieces because 
it is about to obey the statute of Jehovah ! A Christian people 
seeking safety by forsaking the counsels of the Almighty to trust 
in the teachings of fallible and wicked men ! Away with such 
A DELUSION ! It is true, there are dangers in our way. There 
•are many and serious evils, that awaken the deepest soUcitude in 
the hearts of good men, threatening the stability and permanence 
of our civil institutions. There is an awful incongruity in our 
profession and practice as a nation. Our land is the professed soil 
of freedom, and blessed with the purest system of law man ever 
formed ; and yet, milhons of our fellow-beings are doomed to unre- 
quited toil and bondage, the most abject, cruel, and oppressive. 
Say what we will, the system of slavery as it now exists is agitat- 
ing this country to its centre. If the friends of freedom move for 
its extinction in a lawful way, and where they have a constitutional 
control of it, the abettors of this system are clamorous for dis- 
union. If it remains, it will eat out the very heart and soul of this 
Republic. What shall we do? Let us seek wisdom of God. 
Hold up the unchanging principles of his law. Be sure that we 



30 

obey him; that we are not driven by threats, or ridicule, or 
sophistry, to believe the law of man superior in its claims to the 
law of God. Let us steadfastly obey and support all righteous 
laws. Let us discountenance all riot and popular tumult, and, by 
a calm and fearless declaration of the truth, put our enemies to 
shame, and show to all men that we " Fear God, and lionor the 
kingy 

My friends : I leave this subject with your own consciences. 
May the God of infinite justice and wisdom prepare you and enable 
you to act, so as to meet the plaudit, " Well done, good and faithful 
servant," and to enter into that blessed abode where all, of every 
name and clime, are one in the Lord. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



011 837 315 7 



